Gaurav Krishnani and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Dist. Magistrate Collectorate Compound Lko and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25550

Court No. - 6

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2505 of 2025

Petitioner :- Gaurav Krishnani And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Dist. Magistrate Collectorate Compound Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayank Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinay Shankar

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

I.A. No. Nil of 2025

¶7

1. Amendment application filed today is taken on record.

¶8

2. The amendment application is allowed.

¶9

3. The applicant/petitioner is permitted to carry out the necessary amendment during the course of the day.

¶10

Order on main petition

¶11

4. The present petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that on the one hand the interim application pending before the DRT was not being decided and on the other hand, the respondents were threatening to take possession of the property in question after an order under section 14 was passed which too was subjected to challenge in the proceedings before the DRT Lucknow.

¶12

5. In the light of the said, the petitioner had earlier also approached this court by filing a Matter Under Article 227 No.690 of 2025 in which an order was passed on 14.02.2025 wherein directions were issued that the DRT shall endevour to decide the SA within a period of four months and further directions were issued for deciding the interim relief application within a period of two weeks. As, the application was not being decided, once again the petitioner had approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

6. During the pendency of the present writ petition, it was informed that 01.05.2025 is fixed by the DRT for hearing the interim application. In view thereof, the matter was posted today and is taken up. It is informed that the application for interim relief was rejected by means of an order dated 01.05.2025, which has been challenged by filing an amendment application, the said application has been allowed.

¶14

7. In the light of the averments contained in the petition and the amendment application, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have considered the interim application as pressed by the petitioner and ought to have been decided after taking into the objections of the other side, however, through an order dated 01.05.2025, the pleadings of the respondents have been recorded and an order has been passed holding that in view of the rival submissions, I do not find any merit in the application of interim relief.

¶15

8. It is argued that the said exercise of power is wholly unjustified and it is incumbent that all the quasi judicial authority are expected to apply their mind on the rival contentions and to pass orders after considering the rival contentions in the light of the law as laid down, which has not been done.

¶16

9. The counsel for the respondent bank, opposes the present petition by arguing that against the order dated 01.05.2025, an appeal is prescribed under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act before the DRAT and, as such, the petitioner should be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal.

¶17

10. The counsel for the auction purchaser argues that a petition under Article 227 for the reliefs claimed would not be maintainable. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Shiv Baba Industry Lalpur vs. State of U.P. and others; Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Matters Under Article 227) No.3626 of 2018 decided on 28.05.2018 and places emphasis on para 22 and 26 of the said judgment.

¶18

11. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the date fixed for taking the coercive possession is tomorrow (03.05.2025) and, as such, an interim protection is required by this court.

¶19

12. It is also highlighted by the counsel for the respondent that the matter is already fixed before the DRT on 15.05.2025 for further hearing, as is also evident from the impugned order dated 01.05.2025.

¶20

13. Considering the rival submissions, the objection of the auction purchaser that a petition for the relief claimed would not lie under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, founded on the judgment in the case of Shiv Baba Industry Lalpur (supra), deserves to be rejected on the sole ground that in the said proceedings, through a petition under Article 227, an order of confiscation passed under the Essential Commodities Act was challenged, the Court rightly held that for challenging the

¶21

said action of the authority under the Essential Commodities Act, a petition under Article 226 would lie.

¶22

14. In the present case, admittedly, the DRT is a Tribunal working under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227, as such, is amenable to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 on the well known parameters as laid down in the case of Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others (2015) 3 SCC 67 and Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Suresh Chand Jain and another (2023) SCC OnLine SC 877 .

¶23

15. As regards the objection of the counsel for the bank that an appeal lies, it is well settled that an appeal, if prescribed should be availed of, however, considering the urgency and the manner in which the order has been passed, the same would also be amenable to the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227.

¶24

16. As this court finds that the order impugned passed on 01.05.2025, is not in due discharge of the obligation cast upon the DRT and is a callous order, I deem it appropriate to dispose off the petition directing that no adjournment should be granted to any of the parties in the matter fixed on 15.05.2025. The DRT shall endevour to decide the SA itself on the said date or preferably within a period of three weeks from thereafter.

¶25

17. Till the disposal of the SA, the coercive action of taking possession shall remain stayed and shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings.

¶26

18. It is made clear that if any of the parties seeks adjournment, the DRT would be entitled to impose a cost of Rs.50,000/-.

¶27

19. With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶28

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 VNP/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gaurav Krishnani and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Dist. Magistrate Collectorate Compound Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Krishnani and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Dist. Magistrate Collectorate Compound Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt.Rama Devi Vs VI Additional District Judge Faizabad and 4 Ors.

Narendra Kumar Duggal Vs Additional District Judge/ Special Judge E.C. Act Lko.

Rajveer Sharma Vs District Judge Lakhimpur Kheri

Madhav Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda and Ors.

Arinjay Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Asad Umar Rahman and 4 Others Vs the Learned Addl. District Judge CT.NO.-11 Lucknow and 2 Ors.